Why is everyone so quick to try to find this movies failures? It looks to be a really exciting, and thrilling movie. Why destroy it before people see it - not based on the quality of the movie itself, but the science. Last time I checked this was not a documentary...

Why is everyone so quick to try to find this movies failures? It looks to be a really exciting, and thrilling movie. Why destroy it before people see it - not based on the quality of the movie itself, but the science. Last time I checked this was not a documentary...

probably for the same reasons that climate scientists were doing the same for 2012 and the day after tomorrow. When it's your field of interest then you "like" to see it shown accurately

Why is everyone so quick to try to find this movies failures? It looks to be a really exciting, and thrilling movie. Why destroy it before people see it - not based on the quality of the movie itself, but the science. Last time I checked this was not a documentary...

probably for the same reasons that climate scientists were doing the same for 2012 and the day after tomorrow. When it's your field of interest then you "like" to see it shown accurately

Usually you see this stuff after the movies are actually out though - not before they are even in general release...

Why is everyone so quick to try to find this movies failures? It looks to be a really exciting, and thrilling movie. Why destroy it before people see it - not based on the quality of the movie itself, but the science. Last time I checked this was not a documentary...

Because, like with Sunshine, if a movie is couched as realistic, and 'looks' realistic, then the layman will assume it is realistic. This annoys those who know just how wrong things actually are, especially when things are needlessly inaccurate. If your error could have been solved by 30 seconds on Wikipedia, then that's not making a vital deviation to allow the plot to advance, it's just not caring. And not caring about your film is rarely the sign of a good film.

Also, the movie just seems a bit insulting to astronauts, assuming they're panicky everymen. Whcih doesn't hold up well compared to reality, e.g. the Italian astronaut who, on his second ever spacewalk almost drowned in his suit due to a leak and who, whilst cut off from radio contact and with near-zero visibility, followed procedure and returned to the airlock to await his buddy.

Why is everyone so quick to try to find this movies failures? It looks to be a really exciting, and thrilling movie. Why destroy it before people see it - not based on the quality of the movie itself, but the science. Last time I checked this was not a documentary...

I have seen this movie already and I understand it is not meant to be 100% accurate, however there are some events in this movie so unbelievable it removes you from being immersed in the story and makes you very consciously aware you are watching a movie. They need to maintain suspension of belief enough for people to follow along for the ride and not just watch someone take the ride.

I don't want to spoil anything but I will say Sandra Bullock's character should have died many many times.

The last part of the article got me. No wonder we don't have much to show for space wise in the last decades. Humans are just too dainty. And we do not seem to be able to stomach any losses anymore (not complaining ). So how about killing human space exploration and getting robots ready. And after we have completely robotized space exploration get rid of all the stupid meetings and beaurocracies that seem to smother NASA and do some cool stuff again.

Why is everyone so quick to try to find this movies failures? It looks to be a really exciting, and thrilling movie. Why destroy it before people see it - not based on the quality of the movie itself, but the science. Last time I checked this was not a documentary...

probably for the same reasons that climate scientists were doing the same for 2012 and the day after tomorrow. When it's your field of interest then you "like" to see it shown accurately

Usually you see this stuff after the movies are actually out though - not before they are even in general release...

I seem to remember climate scientists talking about the film before it was generally released.

Just on the orbital dynamics, was it the actual Hubble Space Telescope they were servicing? If it was a fictional one or a spysat with an orbital plane closer to the ISS's, would that make it more believable? Or are all the Keyhole sats in HST-style orbits? (Maybe all the spysats are closer to polar orbit, which would give an even bigger orbital plane differential?!)

Whatever. For drama, no matter how realistic you make things, in the end, things have to move at the speed the plot requires and they are not subject to the normal laws of physics.

Finally, a question for the people who know: how do the suits communicate? Is it point to point, or do they need to relay through the shuttle/ISS?

The last part of the article got me. No wonder we don't have much to show for space wise in the last decades. Humans are just too dainty. And we do not seem to be able to stomach any losses anymore (not complaining ). So how about killing human space exploration and getting robots ready. And after we have completely robotized space exploration get rid of all the stupid meetings and beaurocracies that seem to smother NASA and do some cool stuff again.

The problem isn't so much the losses - although that's very tragic - as it is the cost in replacing astronauts. Consider how many hours training the average astronaut has to go through just to get to the point they may go to space on someone elses dime, and then think about how much the cost would change if equipment was considered unreliable.

With robots you have issues of time delays for decision making that you don't have with a human locally.

The meetings and bureaucracy at nasa probably cost less than the above.

Why is everyone so quick to try to find this movies failures? It looks to be a really exciting, and thrilling movie. Why destroy it before people see it - not based on the quality of the movie itself, but the science. Last time I checked this was not a documentary...

Because, like with Sunshine, if a movie is couched as realistic, and 'looks' realistic, then the layman will assume it is realistic. This annoys those who know just how wrong things actually are, especially when things are needlessly inaccurate. If your error could have been solved by 30 seconds on Wikipedia, then that's not making a vital deviation to allow the plot to advance, it's just not caring. And not caring about your film is rarely the sign of a good film.

Of spacewalks in 2013, aside from the one that got cut short due to a suit problem, not a single one was shorter than five and a half hours. The longest was seven and a half.

The truth is that they go so slow they just are not going to make a compelling movie. I don't want to watch five and a half hours of realistic spacewalk, it will quickly get boring. I accept some stretching of reality. And remember that NASA can use that stretching as an excuse to do some education for those who are interested.

Those of you who are experts in orbital mechanics—or perhaps regular Kerbal Space Program players—are likely nodding your heads in agreement, but this bit of jargon requires some explanation for the rest of us.

I got a smile out of this. Yes, if you have even a passing interest in building stuff and space exploration, are interested in space and orbital mechanics, and find amusement in multiple (and I mean multiple) accidental explosion, take the time to check out Kerbal Space Program. If you haven't heard of it before, there is a great thread in the GESC forum.

Excellent article. I am one of those people who's eye twitches when the movies get the science wrong. For example I don't think I've been able to watch The Core without yelling at the TV (probably the worst example of movie physics ever). Hopefully I can watch this with a mostly intact suspension of disbelief, but yeah, the orbital transfer thing has bothered me since I saw the first trailer.

Why is everyone so quick to try to find this movies failures? It looks to be a really exciting, and thrilling movie. Why destroy it before people see it - not based on the quality of the movie itself, but the science. Last time I checked this was not a documentary...

probably for the same reasons that climate scientists were doing the same for 2012 and the day after tomorrow. When it's your field of interest then you "like" to see it shown accurately

I think it's incredibly precious to expect a non-documentary film on general release to the unwashed masses to represent one's field with 100% accuracy.

Name one film released this side of 2000 that was 100% accurate. Most of them are at about 20%, and scifi at about 1%. If a film hits even 80% it's done a spectacular job.

Finally, a question for the people who know: how do the suits communicate? Is it point to point, or do they need to relay through the shuttle/ISS?

There are multiple communication modes, including suit-to-suit and relay via vehicle. The only way the astronauts can talk to the ground, though, is by relaying through their spacecraft.

Robert Heinlein taught me trick of private communications between astronauts can be had by pressing their helmets together to transfer sound energy from one visor to another when I was a kid. Unfortunately, I've never been off planet to test that out.

I am not a rocket scientist, just a Kerbal Space Program player. The other major factor in an orbital rendezvous besides having enough delta-v is timing. Let's say Clooney does have just enough propellent in his magic rocket pack.

They probably would have needed to wait some non zero number of orbits for the timing on their maneuvers to be right. They most likely would have run out of air before even using their propellent.

You could just make the maneuvers right away, and get into a matching orbit, but your target would be in the same orbit on the other side of the planet from you.

Now you have to make another set of maneuvers that leave your apoapsis touching the desired orbit but lower your periapsis below it. This allows you to "catch up" to your target because as the article mentions, while you are lower in orbit you are going faster.

But then at this point you still have to usually wait a significant number of orbits to catch up, and burn more delta-v bringing your periapsis back up to the desired orbit when you do.

"What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out?" ~ Alfred Hitchcock

I'm sure that when George Clooney watches a video by NASA, he gets irritated by people stuttering, the uhs, the ums, and so on. When cinematographers watch them, they probably get annoyed by jump cuts, odd angles, poorly lit scenes, and so on. Let's not forget the message of the last few paragraphs that this is, in the end, a movie, not a NASA training video.

I'm reminded of the time I was watching "Saving Private Ryan" with my cousin. I have seen the movie several times, and so has he. But this time he kept pausing the movie, point out the various errors ("you can see the microphone there", "you can see the camera there"). Needless to say it was utterly miserable experience. Luckily we only watched the first 15 minutes of it. Luckily I tried not to pay attention to the details he kept pointing out and I have since forgotten them, as they would have made any subsequent viewing that much worse, as my attention would be drawn to them.

Why is everyone so quick to try to find this movies failures? It looks to be a really exciting, and thrilling movie. Why destroy it before people see it - not based on the quality of the movie itself, but the science. Last time I checked this was not a documentary...

probably for the same reasons that climate scientists were doing the same for 2012 and the day after tomorrow. When it's your field of interest then you "like" to see it shown accurately

I think it's incredibly precious to expect a non-documentary film on general release to the unwashed masses to represent one's field with 100% accuracy.

Name one film released this side of 2000 that was 100% accurate. Most of them are at about 20%, and scifi at about 1%. If a film hits even 80% it's done a spectacular job.

Repeat after me: fiction isn't fact.

There's a stretch between "not as it is done in reality" , "not rational but physically possible" and "physically impossible".

A fiction can be not 100% accurate and still retain some plausibility. That said, this movie seems to touch only the second category, which is not that bad.

Well that would be just dumb to try to do plane changes. Have they not watched any Start Trek movies? You just plot an intercept course and shoot yourself off in exactly the right direction at exactly the right millisecond. You can even use explosive decompression of an airlock in a pinch.

Why is everyone so quick to try to find this movies failures? It looks to be a really exciting, and thrilling movie. Why destroy it before people see it - not based on the quality of the movie itself, but the science. Last time I checked this was not a documentary...

For me, it's the science teacher in me that goes nuts. Try as we might, it's really, really hard to get kids mind from the huge, dramatic Hollywood version of science to the often much more sedate form of real science. That's not to say that there isn't cool stuff in real science, it's just not as dramatic (go figure) as the movies.

You have no idea how many times I've had to debunk Armageddon, 2012, The Day After Tomorrow, The Core, Volcano, Dante's Peak, and just about every other disaster movie known to man. (Brosnan outrunning a pyroclastic cloud in a pickup with no tires? Yeah, not gonna happen. We would end up with crispy Brosnan long before the cool busted arm moment.)

Because, like with Sunshine, if a movie is couched as realistic, and 'looks' realistic, then the layman will assume it is realistic. This annoys those who know just how wrong things actually are, especially when things are needlessly inaccurate. If your error could have been solved by 30 seconds on Wikipedia, then that's not making a vital deviation to allow the plot to advance, it's just not caring.

If you don't know it's an error, it takes more than 30 seconds to check. Should every single word, clause, sentence and paragraph of every book, play and film be minutely checked for errors by a team of a hundred or so subject matter experts?

They did employ experts, and they do care. They're just not neurotic about it. Chasing 100% is a psychological disorder.

"Gravity 2: The Congressional Inquiry". Priceless and would probably watch it too.I don't know why but I greatly enjoy going over the Rogers and CAIB reports. There is something fascinating in understanding how and why complex systems fail. My next on the list to read is Fukushima NAIIC's report.

Ok Mr SmartyPants NASA guy, 4.3 pounds of pressure eh? Aren't we supposed to be in metric? I think you meant 43 decipounds.

Nope, he was simplifying it -- I'm sure he well knows that pressure isn't measured in "pounds" even using US standard measures, but in PSI. He really meant 29.65 kPa, but nobody in the US would have understood what he was talking about...